No. 3
24.9.2007
Female Leadership and Firm Profitability
Annu Kotiranta – Anne Kovalainen – Petri Rouvinen
Summary
Less than a tenth of the CEOs of Finnish firms
and less than a fourth of the corporate board
members are women. From a social standpoint
more women are desired in top management,
but should firms’ owners and those represent­
ing their business interests be concerned with
women’s role in top management? Since hard
facts have been in short supply, we seek to an­
swer the question by applying scientific research
methods.
possible (and even likely) that, due to the more
harsh selection process, female business leaders
constitute a more exclusive – and thus a more
competent – group than their male peers. Female
leadership may also be associated with a firm’s
overall cultural diversity and multidimensionality
as well as good governance and management
practices.
Our findings suggest that a firm may gain a
competitive advantage over its peers by identi­
fying and eliminating the obstacles to women’s
advancement to top management. While there
is on average a positive correlation with female
leadership and profitability, a too straightforward
and wrong conclusion would be that the current
male leaders should be replaced by women and
that this would improve firms’ profitability. The
focus should rather be on the numerous and
often difficult-to-observe mechanisms and net­
works that favour men or hinder women from
climbing the executive ladder. Gender-neutral
career opportunities are – besides being “fair”
– also in the best interest of companies.
Our results indicate that a company led by a
female CEO is on average slightly more than a
percentage point – in practice about ten per cent
– more profitable than a corresponding company
led by a male CEO. This observation holds even
after taking into account size differences and a
number other factors possibly affecting profit­
ability. The share of female board members also
has a similar positive impact. These findings are
significant and important not only from a statis­
tical and research perspective but also from a
business standpoint.
But why does female leadership seem to con­
tribute to a company’s bottom line? Several
suggestions are consistent with our findings,
even though – due to data constraints – we
are unable to evaluate their respective merits:
Women may be better leaders than men. Or it is
If and when Finland seeks to increase the share
of women in top management, these endeavours
should not be hindered because of concerns
about private firms’ profitability – quite the
contrary, in fact.
Should firms’ owners be interested in women’s position?
Less than a tenth
of Finnish firms’
CEOs are women
Finns can boast about high gender equality
– except when it comes to business leadership.
Less than a tenth of firms’ CEOs and chairmen
of the board are women; less than a fourth of
firms’ board members are women.1 The corresponding shares of large corporations are
even lower.
According to a worn out Finnish proverb,
“War does not long for one man”. But would
business leadership be in need of additional
women? From a social standpoint the answer
is obviously “yes”: it is right and fair that
women and men have equal opportunities for
success in business. The present gender imbalance in top management suggests, however,
otherwise.
Another, and more challenging, question can
be raised: is it worthwhile for business owners and those representing their interests to be
concerned about women’s role in top management? From a corporate social responsibility
perspective the answer is again “yes”. But how
does the issue stand in light of cold accounting
figures?
Many politicians have stated that Finland cannot afford not to utilize women’s knowledge in
listed companies’ board of directors. Vladimír
Špidla, EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunities, has claimed
that selecting women in leadership positions
is profitable for businesses.2 Despite political
belief, the stances of both research and business
communities have been more reserved due to
the scarcity of hard facts on the matter.
A few dozen studies can be found in international academic literature (see Box 1) focusing
on the connection between female leadership
and the financial success of a business. The
research topic is not an easy one, and the findings are contradictory. Often small and skewed
data sets limit the creditability of the studies.
Moreover, the shares of women in top executive
and management positions are often so small
that even in samples of thousands of firms
there might be only a few female leaders. The
previous literature nevertheless indicates that
there might be a positive correlation between
female leadership and financial success.
We conduct statistical and econometric analysis
to determine, whether Finnish firms with female leadership are more profitable than other
firms. In this paper we report our key findings.
The details of our analysis are reported in the
forthcoming research publications.7
Box 1
Some observations of recent studies on the relationship between female leadership and business performance
Richard et al. (2006) studied the impact of the per­
sonnel’s cultural diversity (in addition to gender also
ethnic background) and organizational structure on
firm performance and profitability in the US banking
sector. According to the results the share of female
workers is not connected with firm profitability. In topheavy and hierarchical organizations (high number
of managers as a proportion of total employees) a
positive relationship can nevertheless be found; in
mature and rigid organizations the relationship may
even be negative.3
Rose (2007) studied the relationship between the
gender structure of corporate boards and business
performance. According to the results the gender
diversity of the board does not affect performance.4
Smith et al. (2006) studied the relationship between
the gender structure of Danish firms’ management
and business performance. According to the results
the share of female board members and female CEOs
are positively correlated with firm profitablity.5
Wolfers (2006) investigated the possible discrimina­
tion against women as CEOs. According to the results
the expected earnings of companies led by female
CEOs are not systematically underestimated by stock
market analysts.6
Female leadership pays off
It should be emphasized that the aim of our
study is not to further “the female cause”. The
results are based on accurate and comprehensive data and appropriate research methods.
The research question has been approached as
objectively as possible.
Our target population – compiled by Statistics
Finland – comprises of Finnish limited companies employing at least 10 persons in 2003.
The employed sample covers 91 per cent of the
target population.8 Our sample is even internationally the most extensive and representative
firm-level data used in gender research.
Of the sample businesses 7.6 per cent have a
female CEO and 7.1 per cent have a female
chairman of the board. On average 22.3 per
cent of the board members are female (see Fig.
1). Because the gender of the board’s chairman
does not, according to our empirical analysis,
have a significant effect, we will focus on
female CEOs and on the share of women on
corporate boards.
Thus, when comparing direct (unconditional)
means, firms led by women are 2–3 percentage
points – from slightly over 10 to well over 20
per cent – more profitable than businesses led
by men. This in itself is not, however, a solid
basis for drawing conclusions, as firms led by
men and women also differ in several other
respects:
– In all of the examined dimensions firms
with female leadership have less export
activity, they are less likely to be a part of
a business group, and they are less capital
intensive. We also observe statistically sig-
Figure 1
Should firms’
owners and persons representing their interests
be concerned
with women’s
role in top
management?
Shares of Female CEOs and Board Members
(limited liability companies employing
at least 10 persons and operating in Finland in 2003)
Share of firms with female CEOs
7.6%
Several indicators of business profitability were
examined in our study: return on assets (the
primary indicator), return on investments and
the operating margin.9
Is female leadership correlated with financial
success? Our findings suggests that this is
indeed the case.
Female
CEO
Male CEO
A simple comparison of respective (unconditional) means reveals that businesses managed
by women and men are different in several
respects (see Fig. 2):
– The average profitability of firms in the
sample is 12.3 per cent. The average profitability of firms with a female CEO is 14.0
per cent. The difference (1.8 percentage
points) with a male CEOs firms’ average of
12.2 per cent is statistically very significant
(1 per cent level).
– The average profitability of companies
having at least half of female board members is 14.7 per cent. The difference (3.1 percentage points) with respect to other firms’
11.5 per cent is statistically very significant
(1 per cent level).
Average share of female corporate
board members 22.3%
Females
Men
Sources: Statistics Finland, Asiakastieto Oy, Etlatieto Oy, and calcula­
tions by the authors.
Female- and
male-led companies differ from
each other in
many respects
When comparing direct (unconditional)
means, firms led
by women are
10–20 per cent
more profitable
than businesses
led by men
Figure 2 Profitability Differences between Companies Led by Women and Men
(adjusted return on assets; limited liability companies employing at least 10 persons and operating in Finland in 2003)
Sources: Statistics Finland, Asiakastieto Oy, Etlatieto Oy, and calculations by the authors.
nificant differences in a number of other
variables, although their directions vary
according to the leadership dimension
considered.
– Furthermore, female leadership varies
by industry and region as well as by firm
size and age. For example, female leadership is most common in education, health,
Figure 3 Shares of Firms with Female CEOs in Different Sectors
(limited liability companies employing at least 10 persons and operating in Finland in 2003)
Sources: Statistics Finland, Asiakastieto Oy, Etlatieto Oy, and calculations by the authors.
and social services as well as in hotels and
restaurants (see Fig. 3). Female leadership
is more common in smaller firms.10
In order to isolate the effect of female leadership, a multi-dimensional regression analysis
was employed to control for other factors possibly affecting firm profitability (see Box 2).
After controlling for the other factors, the
positive conditional correlation between female
leadership and profitability is expectedly somewhat weaker than the unconditional one (see
Fig. 4).12 It nevertheless remains positive as well
as statistically and qualitatively significant:
– A firm with a female CEO is slightly
more than a percentage point – in practice
about 10 per cent – more profitable than an
otherwise similar firm with a male CEO.
– The effect of the share of female board
members is similar; a firm with a genderbalanced board is on average about 10 per
cent more profitable than a similar firm with
an all-male board.
Examining female CEOs and female board
member shares within the same model shows
that they have their own independent effects
on profitability.13
Our findings show that female leadership and
a firm’s profitability have a positive correlation
that is not explained by observable firm-specific and sector-specific factors.
It should be emphasized, however, that what
we uncover is indeed a correlation; it is not
a causal relationship from female leadership
to firm profitability or vice versa. Due to data
limitations we are also forced to be somewhat
vague on the individual- and (unobserved)
firm-specific factors that might drive our findings. These issues are among the most important avenues for further research.
Releasing women from the
aquarium
The observed positive and statistically significant correlation between female leadership and
profitability is an interesting and important
finding for both the research and business
communities.
Unfortunately we cannot shed light on causal
relationships underlying our findings. Data
permitting, one should consider a wide range
of personal and socio-cultural factors. Even so,
several conclusions can be drawn.
The possible explanations for the correlation
fall into one or more of the following four
categories:
Box 2
Isolating the profitablility impact of gender
In our models the dependent variable is profitability.11
Of the independent variables, the most interesting
ones are the gender of the CEO and the share of
women in the corporate board. Other independent
variables were:
- The age of the firm’s CEO;
- The size of the board, the average age of the board
members, the age difference between the young est and the oldest board member (a proxy for
heterogeneity);
- The CEO is also the chairman of the board;
- The firm’s export activity, its capital intensity, its
foreign ownership, its group relationship, its credit
–
rating, its auditor’s statement (unconditionally
approved), its gearing ratio; as well as
The firm’s industry, its geographical location (the
headquarters), its size (in terms of personnel) and
its age.
Our model controls for all of the above-mentioned
factors. In other words, our findings are not attribut­
able, for example, to industry or size differences, but
rather the findings drawn from the regression analysis
are conditional on all of the above factors, i.e., the
effects are already accounted for in the remaining
partial correlation between female leadership and
firm profitability.
Female leadership and firm
profitability have
a positive correlation even after
controlling for
other factors
Figure 4 ”Pure” Impact of Female Leadership on Firm Profitability
(limited liability companies employing at least 10 persons and operating in Finland in 2003)14
Profitability impact after taking into account other
factors (see Box 2):
Profitability gap of female CEO
vs. male CEO
Analysed separately
Profitability gap attributable to
share of female board members
Female CEO
Both analysed in the
same model
and
Share of female board members
Sources: Statistics Finland, Asiakastieto Oy, Etlatieto Oy, and calculations by the authors.
*** Statistically extremely significant (1% level).
** Statistically very significant (5% level).
Interpretation of board share coefficients: completely female vs. male board.
Women CEOs
(possibly) lower
wages do not
explain the
observed
correlation
– Generally speaking women may be
better leaders than men (adjusted for the
executive compensations of the respective
groups).
– Upon advancing towards top management, women may be faced with more
harsh selection (due to, e.g., sex discrimination) making them a more exclusive and
thus on average better group as compared
to men in top management.
– Women may seek management positions
in, or may be selected to lead, more profitable businesses.
– Both female leadership and profitability
could be connected to some third (unobserved) factor.
Are women generally speaking
better leaders?
In case of the two first categories above,
women cause better business performance via
their qualities and actions; in case of the third
category, the causality runs from better performance to female leadership; in case of the
fourth category, unobserved factor(s) mislead
research efforts.
Are women generally speaking better leaders? Although our findings are consistent with
the argument that women are better leaders
than men, they do not actually prove it. Indications that women’s leadership style might well
be better suited for modern day requirements
have been found, e.g., in psychological literature. In a study resembling ours,15 the causality
issue was studied (by employing instrumental
variable methods). The observation was that in
Denmark female leadership seems to be causing a firm’s better profitability.
Because our data did not include information
on CEOs’ wages, we could not explictly study
their effect. Information gathered from other
sources and our preliminary calculations suggest, however, that the (possibly) lower wages
of female CEOs explain only a minor part of
the observed correlation.
Are female leaders more exclusive and thus
on average better group than corresponding
men? Provided that the leadership qualities
of men and women are somewhat similar and
those best suited for business management are
Box 3
Concepts related to women’s advancement in working life
Glass ceiling. The possibilities of women to move up
in an organization above a certain hierarchical level
are hindered by sex discrimination. “Glass” refers to the
notion that this is an unofficial and difficult-to-observe
phenomenon. “Ceiling” refers to the idea that climbing
up the corporate ladder is prevented. The glass ceiling
does not refer to discriminatory practices that are of­
ficial rules (such as the fact that until recently women
could not join the Finnish army) or other barriers to
promotion (for example, lack of necessary skills or
experience).
in fact selected, the present imbalance between
genders in business management indicates
the existence of a “glass ceiling” (see Box 3)
obstructing the advancement of women. Thus,
because women go through a tighter “screening”, the average leadership abilities of women
who have ended up in top management may
be better than those of the corresponding men.
The observations of our study are consistent
with this positive selection of women, although
they do not, as such, prove it.
Do women end up in more profitable firms?
Causality from profitability to female leadership is not among the most plausible explanations for the observed correlation, even if it is
nevertheless a possible one. If it were true in the
broad sense, female leaders would, more often
than corresponding men, seek to be employed
by more profitable firms (or ones becoming so
due to exogenous reasons), or more profitable
firms would be more eager to employ women
leaders than otherwise similar firms that are
(exogenously) less profitable.
Does some third factor account for both female leadership and firm profitability? Unob­served factors of female leaders and their firms
in-part explain the observed correlation. As
discussed in prior literature, female leadership might be more broadly connected to the
cultural diversity and multi-dimensionality of
a business. Indeed, our further (preliminary)
analysis suggests that corporate boards with a
Glass wall. Their gender might limit women’s possibili­
ties to move within the organization from one job or
business division to another.
Glass door. Owing to their gender, women have
worse possibilities to get their foot in the door of an
organization; in the recruitment stage, for example,
they might be less likely to be asked for interviews
than men with similar qualifications.
balanced gender composition might have the
highest correlation with a firm’s profitability
(see Box 4).
The connection between a firm’s multi-dimensionality and its profitability is a complex one:
it seems likely that only a sufficiently tolerant
and flexible organization is able to utilize the
competitive advantage brought about by multidimensionality. If an organization is rigid, it is
unable to question old ideas and welcome new
ones stemming from heterogeneity.
Are female leaders a more exclusive and thus on
average better
group...
Female leadership may also be connected
to good corporate governance and management practices. Observing women also at the
top of the corporate hierarchy may indicate
that advancement and appointments in these
organizations are based on competence and
merits, not on traditions and established conventions. Furthermore, it seems only logical
that the compositions of top management and
corporate boards should reflect the diversity in
firms’ employment and customer bases also in
terms of gender.
It may be that several factors, from so-called
natural differences in values and preferences
of men and women all the way to educational
segregation, lead to some sort of – although
certainly smaller than at present – gender imbalance in business leadership. If this is indeed
the case, the ultimate objective should depart
from a perfect gender balance.
... or do women
end up in more
profitable firms?
A gender
balanced board
may maximize
profitability
Box 4
Is there an optimal gender composition of a corporate board?
The findings discussed in the text are based on a linear
modelling of the women’s share in corporate boards:
the adjacent graph uses the same model except that
the women’s share is modelled nonlinearly, after which
we have used a simulation to visualize the relationship
in question (naturally taking into consideration all
other factors mentioned in Box 2). In the graph the
vertical axis is profitability and the horizontal axis
is the women’s share. As can be seen, the positive
partial correlation is the strongest with intermediate
values of the women’s share, i.e., with reasonably
gender-balanced corporate boards. The linear effect
nevertheless remains within the confidence interval
of the nonlinear effect, and thus the simpler linear
model is employed upon deriving the core findings
reported in the text.16
Figure 5
Impact of a Corporate Board’s Gender Distribution on Firm Profitability
Note: The vertical lines depict the 90 per cent confidence interval – the lines break at the mean estimate.
Sources: Statistics Finland, Asiakastieto Oy, Etlatieto Oy, and calculations by the authors.17
Women to the top!
Business decisions do not respect the logic of
democracy or altruistic striving for gender
equality. Business owners and those representing their interests are of course concerned
about the matter in the name of corporate social
responsibility. Gender equality might be listed
among the corporate values, but ultimately
only its connection to financial success ensures
their interest.
Our findings reveal a positive and significant
correlation between female leadership and
firm profitability. Even if we do not prove
causality, our findings have several important
implications.
Our findings suggest that a firm may gain
a competitive advantage over its peers by
identifying and eliminating the obstacles to
women’s advancement to top management.
While there is on average a positive correlation
between female leadership and profitability,
a too straightforward and wrong conclusion
would be that the current male leaders should
be replaced by women and that this would
improve firms’ profitability. The focus should
rather be on the numerous and often difficultto-observe mechanisms and networks that
favour men or hinder women from climbing
the executive ladder. Gender-neutral career
opportunities are – besides being fair – also in
the best interest of companies.
Helena Terho, Vice President responsible for
Competence Development at Kone Oyj, recently directed attention18 to the glass ceiling (see
Box 3) preventing women rising to top management and to glass doors and glass walls, i.e.,
to the phenomenon that even initially women
have a harder time getting job interviews and
that when in a post they move more seldom
from one task or line of business to another,
which in turn is a requirement for rising to top
management. The safeguarding of equal career
opportunities for female and male executives
is in the interest also of companies. If the skills
of women are systematically underestimated
in stages following middle-management and
preceding top management, they will not
have opportunities for success in later stages
possibly based on fully objective criteria and
merits.
our apologies. Clearly one should not be evaluated as a member of a group, but rather as an
individual. Other personal factors, besides
gender, are more important in determining
one’s leadership ability.
Our study uncovers a few key results; along
with our basic answers a broad group of
new questions arises, of which we already
mentioned a few. We do indeed hope that our
observations lead to additional research.
If and when Finland seeks to increase the
share of women in top management, these
endeavours should not be hindered because
of concerns about private firms’ profitability
– quite the contrary, in fact. It can be said that
the present modest share of women at the top
of business life is not only a national discredit,
but also a factor lowering our mutual (also
men’s!) prosperity and well-being.
Also in Finland promoting female leadership
by legislative means has been discussed. Norway has already proceeded with this: according to the gender quota law of 2004 – which
in practise concerns some 500 companies
– boards must have 33–50 per cent of members
of both sexes. In Finland a corresponding law
would require changes in 98 per cent of listed
companies.19
We are not necessarily supporting female quotas or processes, although they could be called
for in the transitional period, during which the
role of women in business life would normalize. In any case active measures are required
to ensure the equal opportunities for success
by women and men, but the means should
rather be influencing the public opinion and
corporate culture.
Our study is inevitably stereotypical and omits
some of recent debate on the matter – for which
A firm may gain
a competitive
advantage by
eliminating
obstacles to
women’s
advancement...
... and these
endeavours
should not be
hindered by
related
profitability
concerns
Annu Kotiranta studies economics at the University of Helsinki and worked as an intern at ETLA, The Research Institute of the
Finnish Economy, in 2006–2007.
Anne Kovalainen (Ph.D.) is a professor of business knowledge and entrepreneurship at Turku School of Economics. She has
worked as a professor of women’s studies and entrepreneurship at the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
(Helsinki). She has been a visiting professor at Stanford University (USA) and the London School of Economics (UK).
Petri Rouvinen (Ph.D.) works as Research Director at ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, and its subsidiary
Etlatieto Oy.
Sources
King, G., Tomz, M. & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the Most of
Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.
American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 347–361.
Rose, C. (2007). Does Female Board Representation Influence
Firm Performance? The Danish Evidence. Corporate Govern­
ance: An International Review, 15(2), 404–413.
Kovalainen, A., Vanhala, S. & Mélart, L. (2007). Women and Eco­
nomic Decision Making at Private Companies. Forthcoming.
Smith, N., Smith, V. & Verner, M. (2006). Do Women in Top
Management Affect Firm Performance? A Panel Study of 2
500 Danish Firms. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 55(7), 569–593.
Richard, O. C., Ford, D. & Ismail, K. (2006). Exploring the Per­
formance Effects of Visible Attribute Diversity: The Moderating
Role of Span of Control and Organizational Life Cycle. Inter­
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(12),
2091–2109.
Wolfers, J. (2006). Diagnosing Discrimination: Stock Returns
and CEO Gender. Journal of the European Economic Associa­
tion, 4(2/3), 531–541.
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J. & King, G. (2001). CLARIFY: Software
for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. (Version 2.1).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
10
Endnotes
By the term “board” we refer to the board of directors
(or board of supervisors, supervisory board), which is a
group of people who monitor the interests of shareholders
and officially administer a company. We do not refer to the
board of executives (or executive board, board of manage­
ment, managing board, management board), which is a
group of people responsible for the everyday management
and administration of a company and carrying plans into
practical effect and is accountable to the board of direc­
tors (or the supervisory board). It is worthwhile to note,
however, that the composition, role and importance of the
board of directors (or the supervisory board) in terms of the
actual leading of the company vary from one country and
corporate governance system to another.
1
2
MTV.fi in 7 October 2006.
The study was carried out by using a questionnaire
completed by 79 firms in banking. The response rate was
16%.
3
on the best indicator or measurement practice. In this analy­
sis profitability refers to the adjusted (winsored ±2,5 %) Re­
turn on Assets (ROA), which we regard as the best indicator
and which gives results that are fairly uniform with the other
alternatives.
The average sizes of firms with male and female CEOs
are, respectively, 71 and 56 employees. The average size
of firms with male-dominated boards (over half ) is over 80
employees while the corresponding figure for firms with
female-dominated boards (at least half ) is under 30 employ­
ees.
10
A total of 24 different regressions (in addition to 6 de­
pendent profitability variables and basic independent vari­
ables, there were 4 different alternatives for female variables
– 3 indicators separately and all three together; heteroske­
dasticity consistent least squares method) including 44 or 46
dependent variables; complete results are reported in our
research publications.
11
Sector-specific and other observed differences between
firms thus explain part of the relationship between female
leadership and profitability.
4
The data cover slightly over 100 listed companies during
1998–2001. The indicator of stock market success was Tob­
in’s Q.
12
The data covers 2,500 companies in 1993–2001. Espe­
cially highly educated female CEOs improved the profitabil­
ity of the company. In the study the causality was assessed
with the help of an instrumental variable method.
13
5
The indicators used are expected and realized returns
from holding the stock. The sample consists of 1,500 firms in
1992–1994. Of the data’s 4,239 CEOs, 64 are women. Accord­
ing to Wolfers the results may tell more about the weakness
of the data than about the market’s underestimation of the
profit-making ability of female CEOs.
The impact of both a female CEO and the share of fe­
male board members remain similar (albeit slightly weaker),
even though they are included in the same model; they are
related to one another, but they have separate and inde­
pendent impacts on firm profitability.
6
Forthcoming in the ETLA Discussion Papers Series as
well as the Turku School of Economics Discussion and Work­
ing Papers Series.
7
Note: When assessing the share of female board mem­
bers the comparison is between completely female and
completely male boards. See also Box 4.
14
Smith et al. (2006).
15
It is good to note that most of our statistical data obser­
vations are on the rising portion of the curve.
16
Simulated with Stata 9.2 and Clarify 2.1 (King et al. 2000;
Tomz et al. 2001).
17
The supplementary financial statement and other in­
formation have been obtained from Asiakastieto Oy. The
sample (12,738 firms) used in our analysis covers over 90 per
cent of the target population as defined by Statistics Finland.
8
Strictly speaking there were six indicators used, since
the three profitability indicators mentioned were as­
sessed as such and in versions where extreme values were
smoothed; this is because there is not a complete consensus
On May 10, 2007 (on the occasion of publishing Dr.
Anna Kortelainen’s EVA Report ”Leading stars – Finland’s first
women leaders”).
18
9
Kovalainen, Vanhala and Mélart 2007; situation in the
year 2003.
19
11
Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA is a pro-market think-tank financed by the
Finnish business community. It is also a forum for forward-looking discussion for
Finnish business leaders.
EVA’s task is to identify and evaluate trends that are important for Finnish companies
and the society as a whole. EVA aims to provide current information on prevailing
trends as well as bring fresh ideas to public debate. EVA publishes reports, organises
debates and publishes policy proposals.
This EVA Analysis is a part of the “Women to the Top!” -project, which EVA launched
together with the Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education. The project is funded
by the European Social Fund (ESF). The authors of this analysis are not affiliated
with EVA.
Further information: www.eva.fi
Published by the Finnish Business and
Policy Forum, EVA Analysis is a regular se­
ries evaluating policy issues and offering
proposals for reform. The views expressed
in EVA Analysis do not necessarily reflect
the views of the EVA.
Additional copies of EVA Analysis can
be downloaded from EVA website
www.eva.fi. To order print copies of
EVA Analysis, send email to address
analyysit@eva.fi, or call +358-9-6869
2035.
12